Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 293 (AP)

Pogula Raju v. State of A. P

2014-02-25

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, M.S.K.JAISWAL

body2014
Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.825 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. He is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife, by name, Pogula Rajeshwari on 28.03.2007. After conducting a detailed trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, through his judgment dt. 06.10.2009 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Hence, the appeal by the sole accused. 2. The deceased-Rajeshwari is the wife of the accused. They were blessed with two children, PW-2 and another boy. PW-1, the mother of the deceased, submitted a complaint, Ex.P.1 on 29.03.2007 stating that the accused is addicted to intoxicants and used to beat the deceased indiscriminately, sometimes even suspecting her fidelity. PW-1 stated that she is staying with his daughter, the deceased and the accused, and on 28.3.2007 she went to Jammikunta to the house of her relatives and one Ambala Srinu (LW-6) informed her that the accused killed her daughter, the deceased. She is said to have returned immediately and found that the deceased was killed by the accused when their minor children were sleeping in the house. She is said to have noticed the brain coming out of the head of the deceased. 3. On receipt of Ex.P.1, the Police, Kazipet P.S., registered Crime No.50 of 2006 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC. The Station House Officer, Kazipet P.S., prepared scene of offence panchanama, caused inquest and postmortem-examination, and recorded the statements of various listed witnesses, including that of the daughter of the deceased and the accused, PW-2. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW-10) filed the charge sheet. Before the trial Court PWs.1 to 10 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.17, Ex.D.1, and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. 4. Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are different versions as to the cause of the death of the deceased. He contends that according to PW.1, the death was occurred on account of the injuries caused with an axe, and PW-2, who was treated almost as an eye-witness, stated that she found some poisonous liquor in a tumbler. He contends that according to PW.1, the death was occurred on account of the injuries caused with an axe, and PW-2, who was treated almost as an eye-witness, stated that she found some poisonous liquor in a tumbler. He submits that except the unreliable and wavering evidence, there is no other basis to prove that the accused has committed the murder of his wife, the deceased. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that PW-2, a juvenile witness, was not only consistent in her version during her chief-examination, but also withstood the rigorous cross-examination. She contends that PW-2 has categorically stated that herself and her minor brother were prevented from seeing their mother (deceased) in spite of repeated efforts and the accused has not only prevented them but also shut their mouth when they were crying. She contends that even if one goes by theory of ‘last seen’ together, the inescapable conclusion is that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. 6. The marriage between the accused and the deceased is not disputed. PW-1 is the mother and PW-2 is the daughter of the deceased and the accused. There is another minor boy, born out of their wedlock. 7. The first information received by the police was through Ex.P.1, submitted by PW-1. She gave a brief description of the nature of relationship between the deceased and the accused, and the factum of her receiving information about the death of her daughter. It is no doubt true that the person (LW-6), who is said to have passed the information to her, was not examined by the prosecution. Once the dead body of the daughter of PW-1, mother of PW-2 and the wife of the accused, is discovered, the source of information about the death of the deceased becomes immaterial. 8. The statement of PW-2 was recorded without any loss of time. She was 13 years of age by the time she was examined as a witness. She gave a detailed account of the nature of the relationship that used to exist between her father, the accused and her mother, the deceased. As regards the incidents that occurred preceding the death of the deceased, PW-2 stated as under: “PW.1 is my grand mother and she is also staying in our house. She gave a detailed account of the nature of the relationship that used to exist between her father, the accused and her mother, the deceased. As regards the incidents that occurred preceding the death of the deceased, PW-2 stated as under: “PW.1 is my grand mother and she is also staying in our house. On that day my father asked my mother to send PW.1 to the relatives house and thereupon my mother gave money to PW.1 and sent here to relative’s house. On that night my mother gave food to both of us and myself and my brother wanted to go outside the house for playing but my father asked to go to bed as we have to go to school in the next morning. After we went to bed, my father might have given something to my mother and on the next day morning when we woke up we noted some yellowish liquid in a tumbler. At about 4.00 a.m., myself and my brother were taken outside by my father for passing urine and thereafter when we wanted to go inside and sleep by the side of my mother, my father prevented us saying that there was a snake in the house and asked us to sleep in the front room and after we slept he covered us with a cheddar (bed sheet) and thereafter we did not hear anything and therefore, we called for our mother but there was no response and when we tried to go inside the house my father prevented us and also closed our mouth asked us not to call my mother and then I raised cries and therefore, the neighbouring house owner by name Suguna came and on enquiry my father informed her that he killed my mother. Then myself and my neighbouring people went inside and saw my mother lying on a cot with a bleeding injury to the back side of the head. I have also noticed cut injury on the back of the neck and the bleeding fell on the cot and on the ground. An axe was also found at the legs of my mother. My mother found dead by then.” This witness was extensively cross-examined. If one analysis the nature of answers given by her, it becomes clear that there is nothing unnatural about it. Her conduct in the Court was commensurate with her age. An axe was also found at the legs of my mother. My mother found dead by then.” This witness was extensively cross-examined. If one analysis the nature of answers given by her, it becomes clear that there is nothing unnatural about it. Her conduct in the Court was commensurate with her age. The nature of innocence exhibited by her in the Court to certain questions is so natural, that it rules out any possibility of the witness being tutored. 9. PW-4 is the neighbour of the deceased and the accused. She stated that on hearing the cries of PW-2 at about 4.00 a.m. she went to the house of the accused. She further stated that the accused had confessed to her about killing of the deceased. In the cross-examination she stated that the accused and the deceased are her close relations. Nothing objectionable was elicited from this witness. 10. The deposition of PW.2 totally accords with the contents of Ex.P.1. The post-mortem report, Ex.P.2 discloses that there were serious head injuries and even the brain has come out. PW.3, the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination, opined that the death was occurred on account of head injury. 11. Assuming that there is any discrepancy or lapse in the evidence of PW.2, the accused cannot escape from the liability. The reason is that he did not dispute the fact that he was with the deceased till the death occurred. Had it been a case where the deceased and the accused were alone in the house, it would have been easy for the accused to plead that either he was not in the house or that he cannot explain as to what happened on the intervening night. Both the minor children were in the house and it was not even suggested to PW.2 that the accused was not present, when the deceased died. Any person, in the place of the accused, would have either prevented the attack on his wife, if any, by a third party, or he would have been the first person to complain to the police if, in fact, such an attack has taken place. The very fact that he was making an effort to prevent the children from going to the place where the deceased was lying, discloses that it is the accused, who committed the murder and wanted the children not to go there. 12. The very fact that he was making an effort to prevent the children from going to the place where the deceased was lying, discloses that it is the accused, who committed the murder and wanted the children not to go there. 12. The trial Court, after careful consideration of the material on record, came to the correct conclusion, and we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment rendered by it. 13. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed accordingly. The material objects (MOs.1 to 4) shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.